A comparison of two methods of teaching reflective ability in Year 3 medical students
Medical Education 2012: 46: 807–814 Context Little is known about best practices for teaching and learning reflection. We hypothesised that reflective ability scores on written reflections would be higher in students using critical reflection guidelines, or receiving feedback on reflective skill in...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Medical education 2012-08, Vol.46 (8), p.807-814 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 814 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 807 |
| container_title | Medical education |
| container_volume | 46 |
| creator | Aronson, Louise Niehaus, Brian Hill-Sakurai, Laura Lai, Cindy O'Sullivan, Patricia S. |
| description | Medical Education 2012: 46: 807–814
Context Little is known about best practices for teaching and learning reflection. We hypothesised that reflective ability scores on written reflections would be higher in students using critical reflection guidelines, or receiving feedback on reflective skill in addition to reflection content, or both, compared with those in students who received only a definition of reflection or feedback on reflection content alone.
Methods Using a 2 (guidelines) × 2 (feedback) × 2 (time) design, we randomly assigned half of our sample of 149 Year 3 medical students to receive critical reflection guidelines and the other half to receive only a definition of critical reflection. We then randomly divided both groups in half again so that one half of each group received feedback on both the content and reflective ability in their reflections, and the other received content feedback alone. The learners’ performance was measured on the first and third written reflections of the academic year using a previously validated scoring rubric. We calculated descriptive statistics for the reflection scores and conducted a repeated‐measures analysis of variance with two between‐groups factors, guidelines and feedback, and one within‐group factor, occasion, using the measure of reflective ability as the dependent variable.
Results We failed to find a significant interaction between guidelines and feedback (F = 0.51, d.f. = 1, 145, p = 0.48). However, the provision of critical reflection guidelines improved reflective ability compared with the provision of a definition of critical reflection only (F = 147.1, d.f. = 1, 145, p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04299.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1040995823</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1040995823</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4839-d6fd72ccf6600d74541c7b8d2aef309fd73aae685d6b96e3c2dc53e06ec7ecaa3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkV1v0zAUhi0EYt3gLyBLCImbBH_FsW-QpnUM0DZuKIgry7VPmEuaFDth7b-fs5Yi4RvbOo9fneMHIUxJSfN6tyopl1XBNOMlI5SVRDCty-0TNDsWnqIZ4UQVhFJygk5TWhFC6kqo5-iEMUV4XakZWpxj1683NobUd7hv8HDf4zUMd71Pj1ew7i50P3GEpgU3hD-A7TK0Ydjh0OEfYCPm-YEPzrY4DaOHbkgv0LPGtgleHvYztPhw-fXiY3H95erTxfl14YTiuvCy8TVzrpGSEF-LSlBXL5VnFhpOdC5ya0GqysullsAd867iQCS4Gpy1_Ay93eduYv97hDSYdUgO2tZ20I_JUCKI1pViPKOv_0NX_Ri73J2hgjPOqFQiU68O1LjMQ5lNDGsbd-bvh2XgzQGwKU_cRNu5kP5xkooshGbu_Z67Dy3sjnVKzCTQrMzkyUyezCTQPAo0W3NzOV9MxxxQ7ANCGmB7DLDxl5F1bsV8v70ycy3mn29uK_ONPwBHJZzB</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1432321684</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of two methods of teaching reflective ability in Year 3 medical students</title><source>Education Source (EBSCOhost)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Aronson, Louise ; Niehaus, Brian ; Hill-Sakurai, Laura ; Lai, Cindy ; O'Sullivan, Patricia S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Aronson, Louise ; Niehaus, Brian ; Hill-Sakurai, Laura ; Lai, Cindy ; O'Sullivan, Patricia S.</creatorcontrib><description>Medical Education 2012: 46: 807–814
Context Little is known about best practices for teaching and learning reflection. We hypothesised that reflective ability scores on written reflections would be higher in students using critical reflection guidelines, or receiving feedback on reflective skill in addition to reflection content, or both, compared with those in students who received only a definition of reflection or feedback on reflection content alone.
Methods Using a 2 (guidelines) × 2 (feedback) × 2 (time) design, we randomly assigned half of our sample of 149 Year 3 medical students to receive critical reflection guidelines and the other half to receive only a definition of critical reflection. We then randomly divided both groups in half again so that one half of each group received feedback on both the content and reflective ability in their reflections, and the other received content feedback alone. The learners’ performance was measured on the first and third written reflections of the academic year using a previously validated scoring rubric. We calculated descriptive statistics for the reflection scores and conducted a repeated‐measures analysis of variance with two between‐groups factors, guidelines and feedback, and one within‐group factor, occasion, using the measure of reflective ability as the dependent variable.
Results We failed to find a significant interaction between guidelines and feedback (F = 0.51, d.f. = 1, 145, p = 0.48). However, the provision of critical reflection guidelines improved reflective ability compared with the provision of a definition of critical reflection only (F = 147.1, d.f. = 1, 145, p < 0.001). Feedback also improved reflective ability, but only when it covered reflective skill in addition to content (F = 6.5, d.f. = 1, 145, p = 0.012).
Conclusions We found that the provision of critical reflection guidelines improved performance and that feedback on both content and reflective ability also improved performance. Our study demonstrates that teaching learners the characteristics of deeper, more effective reflection and helping them to acquire the skills they need to reflect well improves their reflective ability as measured by performance on reflective exercises.
Discuss ideas arising from this article at ‘discuss’</description><identifier>ISSN: 0308-0110</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2923</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04299.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22803758</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical Competence - standards ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - standards ; Feedback ; Health participants ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Miscellaneous ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Self Efficacy ; Students, Medical - psychology ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Teaching - methods ; Teaching - standards ; Thinking</subject><ispartof>Medical education, 2012-08, Vol.46 (8), p.807-814</ispartof><rights>Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2012</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2012.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4839-d6fd72ccf6600d74541c7b8d2aef309fd73aae685d6b96e3c2dc53e06ec7ecaa3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2923.2012.04299.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2923.2012.04299.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=26142011$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22803758$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Aronson, Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niehaus, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill-Sakurai, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lai, Cindy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Sullivan, Patricia S.</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of two methods of teaching reflective ability in Year 3 medical students</title><title>Medical education</title><addtitle>Med Educ</addtitle><description>Medical Education 2012: 46: 807–814
Context Little is known about best practices for teaching and learning reflection. We hypothesised that reflective ability scores on written reflections would be higher in students using critical reflection guidelines, or receiving feedback on reflective skill in addition to reflection content, or both, compared with those in students who received only a definition of reflection or feedback on reflection content alone.
Methods Using a 2 (guidelines) × 2 (feedback) × 2 (time) design, we randomly assigned half of our sample of 149 Year 3 medical students to receive critical reflection guidelines and the other half to receive only a definition of critical reflection. We then randomly divided both groups in half again so that one half of each group received feedback on both the content and reflective ability in their reflections, and the other received content feedback alone. The learners’ performance was measured on the first and third written reflections of the academic year using a previously validated scoring rubric. We calculated descriptive statistics for the reflection scores and conducted a repeated‐measures analysis of variance with two between‐groups factors, guidelines and feedback, and one within‐group factor, occasion, using the measure of reflective ability as the dependent variable.
Results We failed to find a significant interaction between guidelines and feedback (F = 0.51, d.f. = 1, 145, p = 0.48). However, the provision of critical reflection guidelines improved reflective ability compared with the provision of a definition of critical reflection only (F = 147.1, d.f. = 1, 145, p < 0.001). Feedback also improved reflective ability, but only when it covered reflective skill in addition to content (F = 6.5, d.f. = 1, 145, p = 0.012).
Conclusions We found that the provision of critical reflection guidelines improved performance and that feedback on both content and reflective ability also improved performance. Our study demonstrates that teaching learners the characteristics of deeper, more effective reflection and helping them to acquire the skills they need to reflect well improves their reflective ability as measured by performance on reflective exercises.
Discuss ideas arising from this article at ‘discuss’</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical Competence - standards</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - standards</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Health participants</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Self Efficacy</subject><subject>Students, Medical - psychology</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Teaching - methods</subject><subject>Teaching - standards</subject><subject>Thinking</subject><issn>0308-0110</issn><issn>1365-2923</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkV1v0zAUhi0EYt3gLyBLCImbBH_FsW-QpnUM0DZuKIgry7VPmEuaFDth7b-fs5Yi4RvbOo9fneMHIUxJSfN6tyopl1XBNOMlI5SVRDCty-0TNDsWnqIZ4UQVhFJygk5TWhFC6kqo5-iEMUV4XakZWpxj1683NobUd7hv8HDf4zUMd71Pj1ew7i50P3GEpgU3hD-A7TK0Ydjh0OEfYCPm-YEPzrY4DaOHbkgv0LPGtgleHvYztPhw-fXiY3H95erTxfl14YTiuvCy8TVzrpGSEF-LSlBXL5VnFhpOdC5ya0GqysullsAd867iQCS4Gpy1_Ay93eduYv97hDSYdUgO2tZ20I_JUCKI1pViPKOv_0NX_Ri73J2hgjPOqFQiU68O1LjMQ5lNDGsbd-bvh2XgzQGwKU_cRNu5kP5xkooshGbu_Z67Dy3sjnVKzCTQrMzkyUyezCTQPAo0W3NzOV9MxxxQ7ANCGmB7DLDxl5F1bsV8v70ycy3mn29uK_ONPwBHJZzB</recordid><startdate>201208</startdate><enddate>201208</enddate><creator>Aronson, Louise</creator><creator>Niehaus, Brian</creator><creator>Hill-Sakurai, Laura</creator><creator>Lai, Cindy</creator><creator>O'Sullivan, Patricia S.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201208</creationdate><title>A comparison of two methods of teaching reflective ability in Year 3 medical students</title><author>Aronson, Louise ; Niehaus, Brian ; Hill-Sakurai, Laura ; Lai, Cindy ; O'Sullivan, Patricia S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4839-d6fd72ccf6600d74541c7b8d2aef309fd73aae685d6b96e3c2dc53e06ec7ecaa3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical Competence - standards</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - standards</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Health participants</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Self Efficacy</topic><topic>Students, Medical - psychology</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Teaching - methods</topic><topic>Teaching - standards</topic><topic>Thinking</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Aronson, Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niehaus, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill-Sakurai, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lai, Cindy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Sullivan, Patricia S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Aronson, Louise</au><au>Niehaus, Brian</au><au>Hill-Sakurai, Laura</au><au>Lai, Cindy</au><au>O'Sullivan, Patricia S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of two methods of teaching reflective ability in Year 3 medical students</atitle><jtitle>Medical education</jtitle><addtitle>Med Educ</addtitle><date>2012-08</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>807</spage><epage>814</epage><pages>807-814</pages><issn>0308-0110</issn><eissn>1365-2923</eissn><abstract>Medical Education 2012: 46: 807–814
Context Little is known about best practices for teaching and learning reflection. We hypothesised that reflective ability scores on written reflections would be higher in students using critical reflection guidelines, or receiving feedback on reflective skill in addition to reflection content, or both, compared with those in students who received only a definition of reflection or feedback on reflection content alone.
Methods Using a 2 (guidelines) × 2 (feedback) × 2 (time) design, we randomly assigned half of our sample of 149 Year 3 medical students to receive critical reflection guidelines and the other half to receive only a definition of critical reflection. We then randomly divided both groups in half again so that one half of each group received feedback on both the content and reflective ability in their reflections, and the other received content feedback alone. The learners’ performance was measured on the first and third written reflections of the academic year using a previously validated scoring rubric. We calculated descriptive statistics for the reflection scores and conducted a repeated‐measures analysis of variance with two between‐groups factors, guidelines and feedback, and one within‐group factor, occasion, using the measure of reflective ability as the dependent variable.
Results We failed to find a significant interaction between guidelines and feedback (F = 0.51, d.f. = 1, 145, p = 0.48). However, the provision of critical reflection guidelines improved reflective ability compared with the provision of a definition of critical reflection only (F = 147.1, d.f. = 1, 145, p < 0.001). Feedback also improved reflective ability, but only when it covered reflective skill in addition to content (F = 6.5, d.f. = 1, 145, p = 0.012).
Conclusions We found that the provision of critical reflection guidelines improved performance and that feedback on both content and reflective ability also improved performance. Our study demonstrates that teaching learners the characteristics of deeper, more effective reflection and helping them to acquire the skills they need to reflect well improves their reflective ability as measured by performance on reflective exercises.
Discuss ideas arising from this article at ‘discuss’</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>22803758</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04299.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0308-0110 |
| ispartof | Medical education, 2012-08, Vol.46 (8), p.807-814 |
| issn | 0308-0110 1365-2923 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1040995823 |
| source | Education Source (EBSCOhost); MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Clinical Competence - standards Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods Education, Medical, Undergraduate - standards Feedback Health participants Humans Medical sciences Miscellaneous Practice Guidelines as Topic Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Self Efficacy Students, Medical - psychology Surveys and Questionnaires Teaching - methods Teaching - standards Thinking |
| title | A comparison of two methods of teaching reflective ability in Year 3 medical students |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T06%3A26%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20two%20methods%20of%20teaching%20reflective%20ability%20in%20Year%203%20medical%20students&rft.jtitle=Medical%20education&rft.au=Aronson,%20Louise&rft.date=2012-08&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=807&rft.epage=814&rft.pages=807-814&rft.issn=0308-0110&rft.eissn=1365-2923&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04299.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1040995823%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1432321684&rft_id=info:pmid/22803758&rfr_iscdi=true |